Rethinking Prevent: A Case for an Alternative...

Foreword

Throughout the career of the late civil rights leader Ratna Lachman, she never once deviated from the fact that Prevent needed to be independently reviewed and that in its current form it was encroaching and breaching the very civil liberties and human rights of communities that it claimed to protect. So when Ratna saw the opportunity for JUST to lead that review, she grabbed it with both hands. The JUST view is not to prove Ratna’s policy position on Prevent; rather it is to provide an independent perspective that can provide a direction and the beginning of a national conversation that is rooted in protecting the liberty and human rights of all citizens. That both Prevent detractors and supporters recognise that change and review of Prevent is healthy, particularly if it brings in from the cold those communities that feel they are either excluded from the conversation, or perceived to be (as Baroness Sayeeda Warsi puts it), the Enemy Within. Whatever the perspective, all mainstream political parties have agreed at some time or another that Prevent must be reviewed. As Chair of JUST Yorkshire I am thrilled that we have been able to realise Ratna’s vision through the publication of this report. I am conscious that there are many divergent views on Prevent from all sides of the political spectrum, including from those civil society organisations that constantly claim its overwhelming success. It is sometimes claimed that charities like JUST are not interested in the success of Prevent – nothing could be further from the truth. The JUST position is that it has never claimed to be a counter-terrorism expert, it is first and foremost, and always will be a human rights charity that works to protect the civil liberties of all citizens. JUST should be seen as a credible reference point that enables and empowers dialogue to happen from grass roots up – particularly but not limited to those communities that are seldom heard. This report provides a set of evidence based recommendations that I believe will lead to a new beginning that is based on learning from the past, and moving forward together in the future. Furthermore, the credibility of this report and the findings are strengthened by the comments made by Max Hill QC on the 19th of August 2017, who stated in an interview with The Independent that the Government should consider abolishing all anti-terror laws as they are “unnecessary” in the fight against extremists. He argues that potential extremists can be stopped with existing “general” laws that are not always being used effectively to take threats off the streets. This unforeseen intervention by Max Hill QC provides the clearest indication that a change in philosophy is needed. This report has the potential to be a catalyst for that much needed change. Put simply, irrespective of which side of the fence the supporters or detractors sit on Prevent, one thing is certain, that terrorism on the streets of Britain is more complex than it has ever been, and as we approach the third successive year where the terrorist threat is severe we must consider an alternative that is bottom up underpinned with a covenant of trust between state and citizen. I am delighted to endorse this report, and look forward to the much needed dialogue that follows.

Nadeem Murtuja, Chair, JUST Yorkshire

August 2017

Acknowledgements

This report would not have been possible without the generous support of the Open Society Foundations. Additionally, we would like to thank Leila Taleb and Khalida Ashrafi who worked tirelessly to recruit participants and conduct the interviews. We would like to thank Fiaz Ahmed for his technical assistance and unwavering support and we would also like to thank Dr. Joanna Gilmore for taking the time to proofread the report and offer suggestions. Finally, our greatest thanks are reserved for the research participants, whose fascinating insights shaped the direction of our report.

Any errors in this report are solely the responsibility of the respective co-authors.

Contents Page

Foreword 3

Executive Summary 6

1. Introduction 9

2. Islamophobia, Racism and the ‘Good Muslim’ 12

3. Surveillance and Censorship: The Higher Education Example 20

4. Victimisation, Power and Dissent 23

5. Austerity and the Impact of Cuts to Youth Services 27

6. Accountability and Effectiveness 30

7. Power Relations and the Coercion of Prevent 35

8. Solidarity, Resilience and Resistance 37

9. Concluding Remarks 41

10. Recommendations 43

Appendix 1: Brief Respondent Biographies 44

Executive Summary

I. In approaching this study, JUST

Yorkshire were able to draw upon over a decade of experience of holding the state to account in the field of counter terrorism. Specifically, JUST has sought to protect civil liberties and pursue racial justice through an evidence based approach and genuine community engagement with grassroots voices. This report highlights the multiple harms caused by Prevent, which are compounded by the introduction of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The respondents for this study highlight how Muslim communities in particular experience a disproportionate and discriminatory counter terrorism focus. This report details how Prevent is having a chilling effect on several aspects of society, undermining fundamental rights for all but particularly those of Muslim minorities.

II. The Prevent strategy (and the harms it causes in communities) is sustained by a logic of Islamophobia, racism and a reliance upon a ‘Good Muslim/Bad Muslim’ dichotomy. This expresses itself in an undue focus on British Muslim communities as collectively suspect, whereas the threat of far-right extremism is downplayed. Moreover, attempts to instill ‘British values’ within institutions serve an ‘othering’ function which fracture social bonds between racialised minorities and their peers. ‘Good Muslims’ are regarded as those who are servile to government demands in the arena of counter terrorism, whereas ‘Bad Muslims’ are those who actively challenge Prevent, despite doing so through democratic means.

III. Prevent has significantly contributed to a climate of fear, suspicion and censorship, primarily, but not

exclusively, among British Muslims. Prevent officers have actively engaged in censorship by attempting to force the cancellation of legitimate events and intimidated student bodies by requesting information about Muslim event attendees. Muslim and non-Muslim academics have noted the impact of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (CTSA 2015) in particular in encouraging a form of self- censorship. As a result, a ‘policing culture’ is now noticeable, particularly within higher education institutions.

IV. Despite protestations from the government and supporters of Prevent, there are numerous examples of injustice, discrimination and human rights abuses in the implementation of the Prevent strategy. This victimisation has often targeted Muslim men, whilst instrumentalising Muslim women in the process. British Muslim activists have found themselves targeted by the state, due to their dissenting views and political campaigning. Some of the reported cases included a Black student activist being reported to Prevent, seemingly for engaging in anti-racist activism.

V. The impact of austerity and the withdrawal of youth services has had a significant impact upon young people. Access to services and youth provision is diminished, whereas interventions under the guise of counter terrorism have increased in frequency. There is a widespread belief that the political choice of austerity has led to a situation in which vulnerable young people have little recourse to social welfare or youth provisions and are now inappropriately being dealt with through a counter terrorism framework.

VI. There is a severe lack of transparency and accountability in

Rethinking Prevent: Executive Summary

the implementation of the Prevent strategy. Whilst the apparent successes of Prevent are frequently reported by the government, these examples are not supported by evidence. This lack of accountability coalesces with the lack of an evidence base underpinning Prevent training delivered across the public sector, which is informed by the highly criticised ‘conveyor belt’ theory of radicalisation and the identification of ‘signs’ and ‘stages’ of the radicalisation process. There is little to no recourse for individuals wrongly identified as being at risk of extremism and terrorism, or any acknowledgement from the state that this constitutes harm. The ineffectiveness of Prevent is underscored by its reliance on institutionalized Islamophobia.

VII. Unequal power relations are identified, particularly in terms of British Muslims being regarded as the primary group associated with radicalisation, extremism, violent extremism and terrorism. There is recent evidence that practitioners within some institutions are interpreting their responsibilities under Prevent as a requirement to focus their attention upon Muslims. Moreover, the CTSA 2015 and the obligations it places upon public sector workers has created a climate of coercion in which non-compliance is feared. In such a climate, the scope for unnecessary referrals to Prevent and Channel are increased, and so too is the likelihood of harm.

VIII. Despite the discriminatory impact of Prevent and the long-term effects of Islamophobia, a generation of young Muslim activists has emerged to democratically challenge the government’s approach to counter terrorism. This has manifested itself

in the form of protests, community organising and online/offline debate. Despite dissenting British Muslims being viewed as a threat and placed under additional scrutiny, many have been politicised by their negative experiences of Prevent in order to effect progressive change. This activism has been shaped by a discourse grounded in human rights and anti-racism.

Rethinking Prevent: Executive Summary

Recommendations

1. For the Prevent aspect of the government’s CONTEST counter terrorism strategy to be immediately withdrawn in order to prevent further human rights abuses

2. For a full and independent inquiry into the entire government counter-terrorism strategy, to be conducted with full transparency by a non-governmental organisation, where the terms of reference are framed following consultation with charities, human rights organisations and civil liberties groups

3. For the government to release details of all projects funded through counter terrorism budgets in order to allow full and transparent public scrutiny. Specifically, this information should include all costs associated with funded projects, demographic information of those subject to the projects, details on how success was determined and any subsequent evaluations undertaken

4. For the government to reverse budget cuts to youth services and provision promoted under the austerity programme, particularly those in deprived neighbourhoods

5. For the government to cease the divisive and discriminatory practice of embedding counter terrorism aims and objectives within social policy programmes aimed at British Muslims, particularly in the area of ‘integration’ and through the discourse of ‘British values’

6. For the government to encourage and fund a national programme of multicultural initiatives and

programmes - outside of a counter terrorism framework

7. For government ministers and senior police officers with responsibility for counter terrorism to cease targeting the critics of Prevent

8. For independent academic research to examine the specific issue of self censorship among Muslim students and academics within universities, particularly following the introduction of the CTSA 2015

1. Introduction

“My view is Prevent can never

create community cohesion, never.

Because, you are starting from the

point of view that the community is

guilty by definition”1.

1.1 Prevent is a government counter-

terrorism initiative first established in

2006 with the remit of ‘preventing

terrorism’. Prevent refers those

identified at risk to Channel, a multi-

agency ‘deradicalisation’ programme

tasked with identifying and working

with individuals who are believed to

be at risk of being drawn into

terrorism. Both Prevent and Channel

have been widely criticised by

human rights groups, Muslim

community groups, academics,

student bodies, trades unions and

anti-racism campaigners2. This

critique has highlighted the opaque

and misguided concept of

‘radicalisation’ underpinning the

Prevent strategy, the ways in which

Prevent focuses primarily on

Muslims and Islam as the

proponents of violent and nonviolent

extremism (in turn reinforcing

Islamophobia and promoting

prejudice), and the role of Prevent in

suppressing free speech, open

debate and dialogue.

1.2 The recently implemented Counter

Terrorism and Security Act 2015

(CTSA 2015) has placed a statutory

duty on schools, colleges,

universities and other public-sector

1 Humera Khan, respondent; see Appendix 1. 2 See e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/prevent-will-have-a-chilling-effect-on-open-debate-free-speech-and-political-dissent-10381491.html

bodies to actively demonstrate they

are tackling ‘radicalisation’. The Act,

which is part of a wider counter

terrorism state strategy attempting to

address ‘non-violent extremism’, has

been criticised as a threat to free

speech and an ultimately counter-

productive development. Many of

the criticisms have centred on the

assertion that Muslim individuals,

groups and communities will

continue to be disproportionately

targeted by Prevent and that

moreover, it is problematic and

inappropriate for public sector

employees to effectively be given

responsibility for counter terrorism

policing duties.

1.3 In 2017, traces of the UK

government’s counter terrorism

approach are visible in all aspects of

civil society. Employees working for

public sector institutions are now

routinely provided with a counter

terrorism training input (often of

dubious quality), schools are obliged

to promote ‘British values’ to

supposedly ward off the threat of

‘extremism’ and public discourse,

from news programmes to

newspaper headlines, is saturated

with concern and fear regarding the

threat of terrorism. In the period

building up to the recent general

election, the UK experienced a

number of deadly terrorist attacks in

Manchester and London. These

tragic events provoked a national

debate regarding Prevent, the most

familiar arm of the government’s

counter terrorism strategy.

1.4 The debate emerged following news

that several of the individuals

responsible had previously been

reported by their communities to the

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/prevent-will-have-a-chilling-effect-on-open-debate-free-speech-and-political-dissent-10381491.html




Rethinking Prevent: Introduction

police and authorities, only to be left

unchecked to commit their

atrocities3. Jeremy Corbyn, leader of

the Labour Party, argued publicly

that a debate was long overdue on

the role of the UK’s foreign policy in

encouraging individuals to commit

acts of violence4. Such a viewpoint,

expressed by a leading mainstream

politician, begins to deconstruct

simplistic connections to Islamism

and enables a wider discussion on

the causes of extremism and

terrorism.

1.5 The 2017 General Election

manifestos of all of the major parties

included radical policy positions on

counter terrorism; with the Labour

Party promising a review of Prevent,

and the Liberal Democrats

proposing to scrap Prevent

altogether5. 2017 marked a seismic

shift in public discourse concerning

Prevent and there is now a widely

held, and mainstream, opposition to

this key element of the government’s

counter terrorism strategy.

1.6 This report serves as one of the few

examinations of Prevent and counter

terrorism following the

implementation of the CTSA 2015

3 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/ 4 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/26/jeremy-corbyn-manchester-british-foreign-policy 5 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/13/lib-dems-aim-to-scrap-counter-productive-prevent-strategy

and is an attempt to critically engage

with the key issues from a

grassroots perspective. This report

has engaged with young Muslim

people and stakeholders from

across the country, including a

significant number from the

Yorkshire area. This is due to the

long-standing presence and

expertise of JUST Yorkshire in local

communities over a number of

years. Furthermore, from a research

perspective Yorkshire was

considered to be particularly worthy

of inquiry due to Leeds and Bradford

being designated as national

‘priority’ areas for intervention from

Prevent6.

1.7 Aims and Objectives

In undertaking this report, JUST set out to

address the following aims and objectives:

● To demonstrate how the Prevent

agenda has impacted upon

stakeholders locally

● To develop an evidence base to

demonstrate the needs of

community stakeholders and young

people and how this relates to the

government counter terrorism

agenda.

● To understand the role of race,

ethnicity and faith in the context of

the Prevent agenda

6 http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/leeds-faces-great-challenge-in-bid-to-turn-young-away-from-terror-1-7273419

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/26/jeremy-corbyn-manchester-british-foreign-policy



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/13/lib-dems-aim-to-scrap-counter-productive-prevent-strategy



http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/leeds-faces-great-challenge-in-bid-to-turn-young-away-from-terror-1-7273419



Rethinking Prevent: Introduction

● To provide a voice for young people

in particular who have been targeted

or impacted by the Prevent agenda

● To give a voice to a range of

viewpoints relating to the Prevent

agenda, including dissenting views

which are often marginalised in

public debate

● To examine the views of young

people and stakeholders in the

aftermath of the implementation of

the Counter Terrorism and Security

Act 2015

1.8 Methodology

1.8.1 This report is primarily based on a

thorough review of the existing

academic and policy evidence on

Prevent and 36 in-depth, semi-

structured interviews with young

people and stakeholders7, which

lasted between 20 minutes to 2

hours.

1.8.2 Key themes to emerge from the

interviews form the substantive

sections of this report. Within the

report a number of interviewee

respondents chose to be named.

Others, however, chose to remain

anonymous, citing the fear of

publicly speaking out against

7 In total, 18 men and 18 women were interviewed. 16 of the 36 respondents were young Muslims aged between 18-25. 20 were stakeholders, and included professionals with experience of working with Prevent, academics, teachers, faith leaders, race equality practitioners and charity representatives.

Prevent, and possible reprisals for

doing so. It is of note that despite

approaching a number of current

Prevent officers and government

staff working within counter

terrorism, the vast majority did not

respond to our requests for

interview. The report therefore

reflects our assessment of the

academic and policy literature and

the views of the respondents that

engaged with us.

2. Islamophobia, Racism and

the ‘Good Muslim’

2.1 Prevent has been widely criticised,

almost since its inception, for

disproportionately focusing on, and

problematising, the British Muslim

population. As far back as 2009, the

JUST evidence submission to the

Communities and Local Government

Committee on Preventing Violent

Extremism called for the withdrawal

of the Prevent programme on the

grounds that, “It has led to the

disproportionate criminalisation of

BME and, particularly, Muslim

communities”.

2.2 In response to criticisms of undue

focus on the Muslim community, the

2011 Prevent Guidelines made local

authority funding ‘intelligence led’

and ‘proportionate to threat levels’.

Despite this, the 25 ‘priority’8 areas

were still selected based solely on

Muslim demographics; further

entrenching an unsubstantiated link

between Muslims generally and

terrorism specifically. As Mythen et

al observe, ‘evidence from the

Citizenship survey is used

selectively as a means of

underscoring the ‘riskiness’ of

Muslims’9. Attempting to conflate an

increased risk of extremism within

towns and cities with significant

Muslim populations is fundamentally

exclusionary and discriminatory.

8 Prevent ‘priority’ areas receive additional

counter terrorism funds and resources as they are considered to have the most significant problems with extremism 9 Mythen, G. Walklate, S., Peatfield, E. J. (2017) Assembling and Deconstructing Radicalization in Prevent: A case of policy-based evidence making. Critical Social Policy Vol 37 (2) 180-201: 189

2.3 6 years after the guidelines were

issued, our report has found that

British Muslims continue to

experience a disproportionate focus

of Prevent and counter-terrorism at

every level of social interaction.

“We know it’s based on racialised

and Islamophobic logics, we know

the figures, where the people who

have been questioned under

Prevent are disproportionately

Muslims and people of colour so

there’s no denying that this is a

racist and Islamophobic policy

despite all the claims that it’s for

everyone and so on. So, I think it

really goes hand in hand with the

obviously, like the political climate,

it’s there as a tool to really try and

deny Muslim agency and Muslim

expression, that’s how I see it”10.

2.4 At the level of implementation, this

focus is a direct consequence of the

22 ‘indicators of radicalisation’ that

frontline workers are trained to look

out for. These indicators are

described by respondents as ‘crude’,

conflating Islamic practice with

radicalisation. The indicators,

formulated using limited data

compiled from research with

Muslims incarcerated for violent

crime, insert into the pre-crime

space a direct conflation of being

Muslim and the commission of

violent crime. Such a conflation is

perceived by many respondents as

being directly contradictory to the

reality on the ground.

“The criteria are pretty crude

because they seem to conflate

religious piety with extremism and

10 Anonymous, University Lecturer 2

Rethinking Prevent: Islamophobia, Racism and the ‘Good Muslim’

extremism with terrorism and the

problem is that there has never been

a proper definition of extremism”11.

2.5 Connecting the most banal Islamic

practices, such as the adoption of

the hijab, to signs of radicalisation is

resulting in the increased suspicion

of the entire Muslim community:

“Young Asian man plays with

fireworks and gets arrested for

multiple weeks despite there being

no case. Racism is plain. Making a

terrorist out of someone who wasn’t

even a criminal”12.

2.6 Islam and extremism have become

firmly wedded in public discourse.

This has resulted in a number of

discriminatory and unjust acts such

as the demands that public venues

refuse to provide a platform for

Muslim civil society organisations

and the suspicion of toddlers, under

the guise of ‘safeguarding’. It is

telling that our respondents reported

a number of prejudicial and

discriminatory acts within the current

climate of anti-Muslim racism in

which Prevent operates. Extremism

is now seen as a catch all term, that

can be used at will to accuse, surveil

and even arrest Muslims - simply on

a whim.

“You don’t have to do anything, you

don’t have to say anything really to

be labelled an extremist. Anything,

from like your silence, to your family

members, people who you don’t

11 Frances Webber 12 Female 9

have any contact with, those are

used as evidence of your

extremism”13.

2.7 The failure of government to

respond to, modify or even engage

with research that has shown the

inherent flaws in these indicators

has weakened the legitimacy and

effectiveness of the entire Prevent

apparatus - a fact not lost on our

respondent. For many, it negates

any genuine intention on the part of

government to tackle terrorism:

“ˆ[E]ven on its own terms it doesn’t

seem to be working in terms of

spotting people who might, people

who are going to go on and commit

a terrorist offence - which isn’t

surprising since the profile of those

people who have committed terrorist

offences is completely different from

the profile that is used in Prevent”14.

2.8 The inclusion of far right extremism

into the 2011 guidelines was weak;

and belies claims from Prevent

supporters that Prevent ‘applies to

everyone’. The feigned inclusion of

the far right is all the more blatant in

the guideline’s description of the

process of radicalization which

focuses almost entirely on Muslims,

going so far as to identifying

Mosques as ‘radicalisation

locations’15.

2.9 Our respondents repeatedly

highlighted the unequal treatment of

13 Female 10 14 Frances Webber 15 HM Government (2011) PREVENT Strategy

London: TSO: 18


Muslims and non-Muslims in the

implementation of Prevent:

“He mentioned ecowarriors and he

got pulled out for that, and police

questioned him and asked him, “Are

you linked to ISIS?” A twelve year

old. That’s quite extreme doing that,

just for mentioning ecowarrior. He

was Muslim. If he wasn’t, that

wouldn’t have happened. Just for

mentioning those two words”16.

2.10 Most respondents felt that claims

made by proponents of Prevent that

the strategy was not focused on

Muslims because far fight extremists

are also ‘subject to referrals’17, was

misleading. For many respondents,

even a cursory glance at Prevent

referal figures is a stark

demonstration of this

misinformation:

“He goes look, 25% of referrals are

far right; that’s a very reasonable

thing. It shows that there isn’t just

this over-emphasis on Muslims.

Except what David Anderson18 is

being disingenuous with, is what

those numbers mean because, 25%

of referrals, let’s take a sample of

1000 individuals, right? We did a

thousand referrals. So, 25% are

those are 250. There’s 250

referrals. The white population of

16 Male 5 17 Commander Dean Haydon, Scotland Yard 18 Reference to statistics cited by David

Anderson QC, a reviewer of the Government’s

counter-extremism system.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/15/o

ne-four-extremists-reported-governments-

deradicalisation-programme/

the UK is 50 million. Okay, so, that’s

250 referrals out of the potential

population of 50 million individuals.

If say 150 referrals came out of a

population of 3 million, okay...When

you do 250 out of 50 million and 750

out of three million, and then do a

straight ratio between the two, you

find that it is 50 to one...That is

discrimination by any stretch of the

imagination, pure and utter

discrimination”19.

2.11 The statistical inequality also

resonates with the experiences of

many of the respondents in terms of

how terror attacks are treated.

Respondents observed that

atrocities committed by people other

than Muslims are treated differently,

both by the media as well as

security agencies.

“A lot of children have come to me

and when there has been atrocities

around the world, involving non-

Muslims, so they’ve maybe killed

people for whatever reason and they

say, “Oh sir, why is this not being

classed as terrorism?”20

2.12 Furthermore, the ‘British values’

narrative is increasingly used by

politicians and mainstream media to

underpin Prevent. What constitutes

‘British values’ has remained

woefully undefined given that they

are being used as a yardstick.

Officially, ‘British values’ are spoken

of by the government in the context

of respecting ‘democracy, the rule of

19 Asim Qureshi 20 Anonymous, Teacher

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/15/one-four-extremists-reported-governments-deradicalisation-programme/




law, individual liberty, and mutual

respect and tolerance for those of

different faiths and beliefs’21. The

concept of British values has been

extensively criticised by a number of

political commentators as lacking in

substance, being ill informed and

divisive in its implemtation22.

2.13 Taken in conjunction with baseless

indicators, this narrative of British

values was regarded by our

respondents as problematising

anything that is considered different,

especially where the individual

concerned also happens to be

Muslim. For many of our

respondents, what they are being

told by the Government is that it is

not possible to be regarded as

Muslim and British at the same time.

“The British value agenda is always

invoked when there is a national

crisis taking place. For

example..Theresa May says, “Look,

it’s all to do with values. We have

particular value sets. They have a

completely different value set.” By

‘them’, she doesn’t necessarily imply

those minority nutcases that do

these appalling, atrocious activities,

but it’s ‘those lot”23.

21 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidance-on-promoting-british-values-in-schools-published 22 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/04/theresa-may-british-values-muslims-terror-threat 23 Anonymous, University Lecturer 1

2.14 Prevent was regarded by many of

the respondents as treating the

Muslim population of Britain

differently to other groups in society.

By entrenching Prevent into every

facet of society, from schooling to

health to public spaces, the

government has arguably legitimised

the exercise of Islamophobia in the

name of British values and

securitisation. Respondents

described the ‘othering’ of British

Muslims and the values they hold.

“But British values are human values

and human values are Islamic

values. But saying British values is

otherising it and saying if you don’t

subscribe to British values, any

other values that are not ‘British

values’ are not in line with our

society”24.

2.15 There was a recognition from our

respondents that the approach and

implementation of Prevent has

directly resulted in making the

Muslim community as a whole

potentially suspect, therefore leading

to the embedding of institutionalised

Islamophobia.

“it has been a longer-term trend,

where there is a very, sort of, racist

tendency right throughout the

terrorism tragedy, which is, you

know, “Be vigilant of black, brown,

Muslim people. Be vigilant of people

of colour, generally speaking. And if

they start changing their

behaviour…”25

24 Male 5 25 Anonymous, University Lecturer 3

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidance-on-promoting-british-values-in-schools-published



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/04/theresa-may-british-values-muslims-terror-threat




2.16 The ‘them’ and ‘us’ binary promoted

through the use of British values is

not just detrimental to Muslims, but

to the social cohesion of wider

society. Some of our respondents

made the observation that far right

groups such as the English Defence

League and Britain First actually

feed off the constantly reinforced

perception that special measures

such as Prevent need to monitor

and intervene with Muslims, all of

whom are regarded as potential

terrorists.

2.17 There is the sense amongst some

respondents that there exists a

proactive and deliberate

demonisation of the Muslim

community by the government. The

imposition of ‘British values’ and the

‘us v. them’ narrative is central to

this as what makes a ‘good Muslim’

is defined by what is ‘palatable’. A

case referred to by the following

respondent concerns that of Sara

Khan, founded of ‘counter

extremism’ group Inspire who were

revealed to be funded directly by the

Home Office and managed by a

professional public relations

company called Breakthrough

Media, despite their claims of being

grassroots and independent26:

“The key people who started

Breakthrough Media were actually

from Bell Pottinger and Bell

Pottinger had been given $500

million by the US to develop counter

26 http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/feted-counter-extremism-campaigner-linked-covert-propaganda-company-746667480

insurgency videos in Iraq...some

people like Sara Khan from Inspire,

for instance, has been managed by

them [Breakthrough Media]. You

know, managed by them quite

closely to give her the media

platform and probably the media

skills that she otherwise would never

have accessed or obtained. So,

there is definitely some kind of

giving access to certain voices as

well as de-legitimising others”27.

2.18 It was observed that some ‘good

Muslims’ deliberately demonise the

collective Muslim community and

are given legitimacy by the wider

public as providing an insight into

‘their own’, whilst not being given

any legitimacy by the Muslim

population generally. The

government-defined ‘good Muslim’

further alienates a population that

does not see itself in the caricatures

being held up as acceptable:

“I think what Prevent has managed

to do really, really well is bring to the

surface a bunch of people up and

down the country who have got, let’s

say, let’s call them ‘distasteful

agendas’ and it’s done that

exceptionally well. So organisations

that we can call out are ‘Quilliam’ ..

and there’s a few others out there,

but I think organisations like that,

who make it their daily job, their

bread and butter to demonise

Muslims and actually call out Muslim

organisations who, that are actually

trying to defend grassroots

27 Anonymous, Researcher and Activist

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/feted-counter-extremism-campaigner-linked-covert-propaganda-company-746667480




individuals on the ground, like we

are”28.

2.19 As some of our respondents

observed, such ‘good Muslims’ or

the organisations they represent,

serve only to cause further social

divisions at best and speak to the far

right agenda at worst. They do not

resonate with the vast body of

British Muslims:

“Some foundations, that are disliked

by the larger sectors of the

community..take huge amounts of

[Prevent] money and they have zero

effect….because they are disliked

by [other] organisations, they are

disliked by the masjid [mosques],

they are disliked by everyone in the

community...You are basically

digging in the wrong place”29.

2.20 For many respondents, to speak out

about matters such as foreign policy,

civil rights, and equalities is to be

labelled a ‘Bad Muslim’ by the

government and security agencies.

This is highly problematic, and

speaks to the deliberate curtailment

of civil liberties and the legitimate

right of British citizens to hold their

government to account:

“The narrative around...the whole

good Muslim, bad Muslim logic and

those who are resisting it are going

to be categorised as suspect, as bad

Muslim, and I think what’s sustaining

is the whole discourse, this idea of

dealing with, or trying to manage a

28 Third Sector Worker 2 29 Shaykh Ahmed Saad al-Azhari

population that just won’t, and rightly

so, refuses, rather to assimilate to a

particular way of life which is based

on very western, British, white

supremacist values”30.

“So, what we’ve had over the last

12, 13 years if you like, is attempts

to actually marginalise certain

people from the public sphere. I

kind of coined the term professional

Islamophobia if you like. Where in

essence, what we’re seeing is

people being smeared, demonised

with labels of extremism, or Islamists

or everything else, where they’re not

accepted, or they’re the wrong

people to engage with. You know,

they’re barred from university, all

public sphere’s if you like, all the

civic sphere’s, all the social spheres;

to the point where they’re taken out

of the game. The only people, that

from a Muslim community

perspective, the only people that are

worthy of engaging are those that

kind of tow a particular line”31.

2.21 Subjection to consistent stereotypes,

structural Islamophobia and the

erosion of civil liberties has had a

disconcerting impact on some of the

younger respondents, who appear in

some cases to have internalised the

terrorism narrative. This is manifest

in terms of self-policing and an

apparent acceptance that they, as

British Muslims, should be policed

more than other British citizens. One

young respondent sought to set up a

student collective called the Muslim

30 Anonymous, University Lecturer 2 31 Azad Ali


Union at her college, a replica of the

Christian union that already existed.

Constant red tape being introduced

by the college administration

actually resulted in the Muslim union

being disbanded. Despite this, the

respondent ‘understood’ the

approach of the college:

“Things can't always go to plan and

they, kind of, expected us [Muslim

Union] to have a plan set in place

months in advance, which speaker

we have, which teachers are going

to be supervising, you know, it's not

doable, sometimes the speaker will

cancel or it will be a different

speaker because that one's too busy

and we used to get into trouble for it

because, you know, they didn't know

who the speaker was or we had to

provide them with an email with

details of where the speaker studied,

who they're associated with before

we could have them in which I do

understand but it just felt, kind of; I

didn't feel like Christian Union had to

go through all that if they wanted to

have guests in or a speaker in”32.

2.22 Despite the internalisation of

Islamophobia amongst some, there

remains a strong sense of British

identity among many respondents.

Almost all the 18 - 25 year old

Muslims interviewed spoke of a

strong Muslim identity alongside a

positive British identity, regardless

of what the wider political or media

narrative is:

32 Female, 5

“It’s [Islam] a religion that allows us

to lead our life in a balanced way.

Like you can be, you can live in the

West and following Islam, it has its

struggles but because of the

message that it gives us and if you

try you can live, you can live in the

West and sort of have a balanced

life”33.

2.23 Along with this identity comes a

legitimate demand to be treated

equally, with due regard to their civil

liberties:

“When the Prevent was connected

to the Home Office and DCLG34, to

Local Authorities, then it became

problematic. It then bypassed what

the Local Authorities should be

doing anyway to safeguard their

communities... Equal Opportunities

and everything. But, we had the cart

before the horse, we have this

counter-terrorism policy, in the

absence of safeguarding Muslims

against discrimination. So, what

happened is, that... your voice was

further taken away”35.

2.24 One respondent spoke to the

potential of Prevent being far more

effective if it were to use faith and

faith based ideology as central to

tackling terrorism, rather than the

cause for it. The case study of the

Radical Middle Way (RMW) is one

prime example of this. Founded in

the wake of the 7/7 attacks on the

33 Female 7 34 Department for Communities and Local

Government 35 Humera Khan


London underground, RMW

describes itself as aiming to promote

a mainstream, moderate

understanding of Islam to which

young people can relate. By working

alongside grassroots partners, RMW

says it “creates platforms for open

debate, critical thinking and deep

spiritual reflection. RMW aims to

give its audiences the tools to

combat exclusion and violence, and

encourage positive civic action”:

“[What we were able to do was] set

the agenda where Islam was not

viewed as the problem, but actually

a core part of any response to

violence, extremism, terrorism would

have to be as much theological as it

was intelligence led”36.

36 Abdul Rehman Malik

3. Surveillance and

Censorship: The Higher

Education Example

3.1 It is evident from our respondents

that Prevent is contributing to

structurally excluding certain groups

from actively engaging in civic

society and thus restricting their

ability to bring about progressive

change. Nowhere is this more

evident than in the field of Higher

Education. A wide spectrum of our

respondents articulated concerns in

relation to surveillance, censorship

and the resultant isolation felt by

many. Several of these concerns

stem from their direct negative

experiences of Prevent.

3.2 For instance, a student activist from

the National Union of Students

spoke of an encounter with a

University-based Prevent officer,

who demanded a list of student

names associated with the Islamic

Society37. There was no legitimate

justification for this request, and

taken together with other

interactions with this Prevent officer,

made this individual feel as though

they were ‘spied upon’.

3.3. Such concerns extend beyond those

of Muslim students, to those of

Muslim academics too. One such

respondent reported feelings of an

increased level of self-doubt and

anxiety, particularly concerning the

ways in which they are viewed by

the wider public. The climate of

suspicion, encouraged by Prevent,

has led to a degree of self-enforced

marginalisation for this individual:

37 Anonymous, NUS Officer

“There have also been times when I

have been concerned about the way

in which people have perceived me

and the kinds of things that I say. So

just at a personal level, I am not….

Trusting relationships are very

difficult for me, particularly amongst

the wider British community38.

3.4 Other academics, both Muslim and

non-Muslim, also reported the

negative impact of Prevent on

University life. There is an

acknowledgement from academics

that Prevent is leading them to be

extra vigilant about how they

articulate themselves, and that this

quite often translates into a form of

self censorship. One British Muslim

academic, specialising in the field of

race, ethnicity and education,

explains how the climate Prevent

has facilitated impacts on his

everyday work:

“Because the Muslims are no longer

a faith community; they are a

suspect community now. I think that

climate… sometimes, I have to

control what I write. A lot of the

times I might write a sentence and

end up deleting it. A lot of people go

through self-censorship”39.

3.5 Interestingly, some non-Muslim

academics we spoke to also

mentioned the fear associated with

censorship, particularly due to

writing material considered to be

critical of government policy. The

medium to long term impact of this

will be to considerably weaken

academic freedon, a concept

38 Anonymous, University Lecturer 3 39 Anonymous, University Lecturer 1

Rethinking Prevent: Surveillance ance Censorship: The Higher Education Example

recognised as representing the

democratic foundations of British

society. When academics are

engaging in acts of self-censorship,

effectively withdrawing themselves

from certain debates, the intellectual

rigour with which government policy

can be challenged, is compromised:

“I do think, like I said, there is a bit of

a wariness about and I’m thinking of

academic peers about, “Oh my god,

can we write this,” and so actively

challenge it. So, there is now a

questioning and with established

people as well because it’s really

had that effect on making us having

to perhaps question our work when

we shouldn’t even have to... it’s

making any forms of critique, feel

illegitimate when they’re completely

not but that’s against the climate that

we’re working within”40.

3.6 Moreover, it is firmly acknowledged

that Muslim students experience

particular forms of exclusion

stemming from what one academic

describes as a ‘policing culture’

within University spaces:

“So, someone who might identify as

being somebody who challenges

actively Prevent, you’ve also got to

self-surveil yourself as well, because

there’s always those dangers, your

ideas interpreted. So, it’s a constant

policing culture that’s being really

ingrained and it’s having a massive

effect… universities are supposed to

be spaces of academic freedom,

critical exchange and so on. But


that’s really now being hollowed out

through the Prevent policy”41.

3.7 Whilst many of our respondents

spoke of a climate or culture of

suspicion leading to self censorship

among Muslim students and

academics, of greater concern is the

number of actual instances of

attempted censorship reported to us.

There is an abundant body of

evidence suggesting that Prevent

officers have proactively taken steps

to disrupt events organised by

academics, campaigners and

human rights activists, quite often

leading to their cancellation42. These

events typically featured discussions

of Prevent and Islamophobia43:

“Prevent officers, in each locality, a

lot of their time is spent policing

Muslim organisations that criticise

the policy. They’re trying to actively

disrupt them from organising events,

to protest the policy. So, it's

become a political containment

exercise….So this huge focus on

some quite small NGO’s that are

actually quite small and are

struggling… they have support from

the Muslim community but I would

say that they’re under huge

pressure. Everybody from the Prime

Minister on down has named

checked these organisations, in

41 Anonymous, University Lecturer 2 42 https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/jun/15/university-research-terrorism-without-state-government-rightwing-interference 43 https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/eroding-trust-20161017_0.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/jun/15/university-research-terrorism-without-state-government-rightwing-interference




https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/eroding-trust-20161017_0.pdf

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/eroding-trust-20161017_0.pdf

Rethinking Prevent: Surveillance ance Censorship: The Higher Education Example

trying to derail them and blacken

their name”44.

3.8 The reports of active attempts by

Prevent officers to interfere with the

organising of events should alarm all

those concerned with protecting civil

liberties and who are committed to

encouraging free debate within the

democratic norms of society. Our

respondents, including many Muslim

students, spoke of avoiding

classroom debates on topics such

as Israel and Palestine, for fear of

being singled out and regarded as

controversial. Other respondents

spoke of Muslim students retreating

from campus based activism, with

the knowledge that this may also

place them under greater scrutiny.

Such acts of self censorship were

also reported by Muslim academics,

suggesting that a significant issue

exists in terms of Prevent impeding

the ways in which Muslim students

and academics experience higher

education as well as participate in

civic life.


4. Victimisation, Power and

Dissent

4.1 Across the board, respondents,

Muslim and otherwise, either spoke

of or alluded to the Prevent agenda

as being directly responsible for the

Muslim community being viewed as

‘different’:

“Seeing us as... subversives, not as

full citizens, with political concerns

but as people who have to be

contained and have to be counter

surveilled and have to have counter

insurgency techniques used against

our population. Counter subversion

techniques, which is aiming and

shaming, framing and blaming our

community institutions and our

people”45.

4.2 Almost every respondent

interviewed was able to recount at

least one, if not multiple accounts, of

individuals and families that have

been the victims of the Islamophobia

inherent in the Prevent apparatus.

The sense of victimisation

experienced ranged from feeling

unable to engage in broader society

in the same way as every other

British citizen, to the long term

impact of having been the subject of

a Prevent referral:

“He [volunteer] was actually

investigated by Special Branch and

they actually wrote to our board and

things like that. He was a very young

guy and he was doing a good job.

He was a really nice lad but

basically he was forced to leave and

then as far as I know, he really had

difficulty finding jobs after because


he was on the blacklist. He wanted

to do youth work and things like that

but when they did the checks on

him, he would pop up as a risky

person. That fed into my research as

well and I started looking into things

like how Prevent works in schools,

how it works with young people, how

people get onto this list and what

happens once they're on this list” 46.

4.3 One respondent in particular

highlights the different approach

Prevent has towards Muslim women

and men. The government has

injected funds into programmess

that claim to lift Muslim women out

of stereotypically ‘restrictive’

situations in the name of

empowernment, whilst at the same

time problematising Muslim men:

“She [Hazel Blears MP47] very

clearly said to me... "We have a very

different approach between men and

women. Women are being

empowered to deal with what

Muslim men are doing and Muslim

women are being empowered and

they're being strengthened and they

are our allies, whereas Muslim men

are being dealt with strictly by the

Home Office Counter Terrorism

department, policing and stop and

search and control orders. That's the

strategy for men and this is the

strategy for women" 48.

4.4 Some respondents, particularly

those engaged in activism,

highlighted the importance of

tackling racism and structural

exclusion. It is through activism that

46 Zareen Ahmed 47 Former secretary of state for Communities

and Local Government 48 Zareen Ahmed

Rethinking Prevent: Victimisation, Power and Dissent

individuals are able to effectively

challenge the long term impact of

Islamophobic and racist attitudes

and perceptions that are now

embedded in so many aspects of

British society:

“we argued for us to be able to

engage as communities, you have to

be free of discrimination. You have

to be recognised as a community.

Also, we worked on that premise,

that we are citizens, tax-payers,

therefore the statutory sector needs

to engage with us in a way that it

engages with everybody else. As

citizens living in the local areas, who

have a right to live freely,

basically”49.

4.5 Many respondents alluded to the

idea that unequal power relations

have been built into the

Islamophobic narrative that Prevent

gives rise to. These devalue the

voice of even the most qualified

Muslims, simply by virtue of them

being Muslim. A prime example of

this is the perception of one of our

respondents who felt that no matter

how qualified she becomes, as a

Muslim, her voice will never be given

the same legitimacy as even the

most unqualified white person:

“if I was just a random white guy on

Twitter expressing my...opinions, not

necessarily needing any experience

or anything to say anything, I feel

like that is accepted. Whereas, if I

say a qualified political opinion,

based on experience, based on that

49 Humera Khan

research or whatever, people are

just like, oh well, you are Muslim, of

course you are going to think that.

Yes, of course you don’t like foreign

policy”50.

4.6 It is not just one’s ascription to a

particular faith, but also certain

positions that strip people of the

power to challenge government.

This is primarily because of the

statutory duty and the subsequent

accountability that creates the sense

that people in certain positions of

employment are not able to

challenge Prevent. It is notable that

non-Muslim respondents in non-

governmental positions of power

afford them a level of security from

which they can challenge authorities

without the repercussions that their

Muslim counterparts would face:

“Because I’m the [position in NUS],

I’m like, well listen, no-one can really

say anything...I had the confidence

to say, “No, fuck off.” [when asked

for names of every member of the

Palestine society]. But if it had been

any other job with any other junior

position where I didn’t have any

power, I’d have been like, oh I don’t

know what to do and that’s the

position..[of]...nurses, doctors …

whatever, they don’t necessarily

agree with it but they don’t feel

confident enough to stand up to it

and say, ‘No’”51.

4.7 Prevent is encouraging a culture

whereby any challenge of the status

50 Female 10 51 Anonymous, NUS Officer


quo or of stringently defined ‘British

values’ can be regarded as a sign of

radicalisation:

“Any critics of the policy will be

branded a terrorist sympathiser”52.

4.8 Moreover, the climate that has been

developed is one where dissent from

a non-Muslim is fine, but the very

same dissent from a Muslim is

unacceptable. For respondents, this

is experienced as deliberate

criminalisation and demonisation.

For example, when a Muslim speaks

about, for example, foreign policy,

this is more likely to be deemed

radicalisation. It is precisely for this

reason that some of our

respondents engage in significant

levels of self-censorship (see

Section 3 for further details):

“I know for a fact that if I held the

political views that I hold now and

was to air them in school, college or

university and I was Muslim, that I

would definitely, definitely, definitely

be reported by now and I feel in a

privileged position, I feel like I can

say these things, I can, as a non-

Muslim, say certain things, either in

person or on Facebook, which would

be a big no-no if you were a

Muslim”53.

4.9 For many respondents, the racism

inherent in Prevent bleeds across

faith based affiliation. As a result,

challenges of the status quo by

Black and ethnic minority individuals

52 Anonymous, NUS Officer 53 Anonymous, NUS officer

are perceived by respondents as

being subject to Prevent as a means

of shutting down their voice, without

safeguarding their civil rights to do

so:

“In the last month, this person, this

academic made a referral of a black

woman - she’s not a Muslim, she’s a

black woman - at my university to

the Prevent programme because

she said that this student was talking

about anti-racism, that we need to

fight racism, all of that kind of stuff.

And that meant that this academic

became apprehensive about this

student, and reported it”54.

4.10 The disempowerment is not only

experienced by those who challenge

Government policy generally, but

perhaps more impactfully, those who

find themselves being subjected to

the Prevent apparatus. For

respondents, this is all the more

surprising in instances where the

Prevent apparatus comes into play

in relation to individuals that are

highly educated and deeply

embedded in British institutional

frameworks. There is the sense that

if they are unable to navigate the

system so as to protect themselves

from apparently baseless

accusations, then those with less

social capital will be entirely unable

to do so:

“So, one example is a doctor and

her husband is also a consultant.

So, these are very educated people

and their child gets referred to

54 Anonymous, Journalist


Prevent. Prevent officers come and

visit them. Then they call Social

Services and all of this kind of

activity, it’s traumatised them. They

just couldn’t believe, “Well, what’s

happened here? How has it

escalated that Social Services are

involved, police are involved, and all

my son did is something stupid

maybe, or said something maybe

shouldn’t have said. How has it

escalated to this point?” That’s part

of the problem”55.

4.11 Stripping those who are able to

challenge Prevent of voice

corresponds with an absence in the

Prevent apparatus to build

resilience. Whilst the Prevent

guidelines demand staff or

organisations are able to challenge

extremist ideology, it is unclear

what, if any, guidance is provided to

build such resilience. Rather, the

deliberate conflation of religion and

political activism actually embeds a

culture of ignorance and fear.

Furthermore, it is impossible to build

community resilience when

community work is itself carried out

within a definitively ‘Prevent’ lens

and objective - it is both

counterintuitive and embeds

mistrust.

55 Azad Ali

5 Austerity and the Impact

of Cuts to Youth Services

5.1 A number of respondents made

reference to the wider social policy

context concerning Prevent and

counter terrorism more generally.

The intensification of counter

terrorism work in recent years has

dovetailed with drastic budget cuts

to local authorities for vital services

in the landscape of youth work and

engagement. The prioritisation of

policing and enforcement over other

forms of engagement has had a

significant impact on the wellbeing of

young people and social cohesion

generally:

“I think, if anything needs focusing

on it is the online element - but

again I think that there are

programmes in schools that have

nothing to do with Prevent which are

to do with cyber safety and so, yes,

you don’t need to target a particular;

the framework is all there for

protecting young people. The

framework was there, so what the

government has been doing is

demolishing brick by brick that

framework of youth services and

youth provisions and all of that and

replacing it with this policed model

which we don’t need, which is

divisive and dangerous and

counterproductive56.

5.2 This respondent, like others, argues

that the current social welfare

system would be doing its job in

identifying vulnerable individuals and

providing appropriate support, if it

was properly funded. This calls into

56 Frances Webber

question the requirement and

necessity of an interventionist

counter-terrorism apparatus:

“You strip resources from youth

services, social services, from

education, you’ve put a load of

resources in this counter terrorism

thing, you pick up kids who could

have been picked up, or should

have been picked up, would've been

picked up if the resources had been

there by these other, in the different

context of social work by teachers

whatever and where there have

been successes it has been

because people have needed help

in getting their life together or in

finding some sort of, in just getting,

sometimes it is material help,

sometimes it is psychological help,

you don’t need a counter-extremism

policy for people to get that kind of

help”57.

5.3 The austerity programme has had a

significant impact on public services,

ranging from the closure of public

libraries and swimming pools to the

wholesale abandonment of youth

services. The detrimental impact of

national budget cuts on young

people, introduced by the Coalition

government under the political guise

of austerity, are well

documented58,59. The evidence also

suggests that those living within

57 Frances Webber 58 https://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/working%20for%20change/improving%20health/child%20health/cutting-away-at-our-childrens-futures-austerity-child-health-guuk-2016.pdf?la=en 59 https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2014/07/On-line-Catalogue225322.pdf

https://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/working%20for%20change/improving%20health/child%20health/cutting-away-at-our-childrens-futures-austerity-child-health-guuk-2016.pdf?la=en





https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2014/07/On-line-Catalogue225322.pdf

https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2014/07/On-line-Catalogue225322.pdf

Rethinking Prevent: Austerity and the Impact of Cuts to Youth Services

deprived communities have been

disproportionately impacted by such

political decisions60:

“It got to a point where BME

organisations are all saying, ‘go get

Prevent, take from Prevent’. Well

hang on; are there no other streams

of funding open to BME

organisations? I know from

speaking to lots of different charities,

little ones, on the ground, struggling

charities, struggling small

organisations, that they felt that they

were being pushed towards Prevent

whether they wanted to take that

money or not. And a lot of them did

actually have to compromise, do

they keep the organisation running,

do they take the money or don’t

they?”61.

5.4 The impact of austerity also has, for

some, a tangibly gendered impact in

respect of Prevent:

“The austerity cuts from the

government, the Conservative

government, have not helped

matters at all, because on the one

hand, the Prevent pressures on

schools and all these sorts of things,

they've remained whilst cutting

things like the youth service and

funding to community projects and

things like that. Now more than ever

I think we need a youth service with

good youth workers that can talk to

60 https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/Summary-Final.pdf 61 Third Sector Worker 2

young people, talk to men in

particular and help them and

empower them and guide them in

the same way that many women's

organisations got funding from

DCLG, as Hazel Blears said. I saw

the proposals for all the funding and

they were all for women's

organisations. They weren't

targeting men62”.

5.5 This is not to say, however, that

Muslim women’s groups funded by

the government have not

encountered problems. A recent

study has demonstrated that Muslim

women’s groups who adopted more

critical stances towards government

positions in the arena of counter

terrorism were often overlooked or

marginalised, whilst those that

attempted to ‘toe the line’ found

themselves treated more

favourably63. One of our

respondents, who has worked within

Prevent programmes funded by the

government, directly relates the

austerity agenda and counter

terrorism by suggesting that youth

work has a vital role to play in

tackling radicalisation:

“Well, if you look at austerity.

Austerity has eroded away

traditional youth work. I’d argue that

a greater investment into youth work

services would reduce the potential

of radicalisation”64.

62 Zareen Ahmed 63 Rashid, Naaz. 2016. Veiled threats: Representing the Muslim woman in public policy discourses, Bristol: Policy Press 64 M. Ali Amla

https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/Summary-Final.pdf

https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/Summary-Final.pdf

Rethinking Prevent: Austerity and the Impact of Cuts to Youth Services

5.6 Views such as this, expressed by a

frontline professional working within

the counter terrorism apparatus, call

into question the unintended

consequences of political decisions

framed within the discourse of

austerity. Relatedly, there have been

recent calls to acknowledge that

tackling inequality, and fostering

social cohesion, may play a role in

preventing extremism65. Such an

approach would place an emphasis

upon social and economic

investment in communities, with

youth work and services at the

heart.

5.7 Other respondents have observed

that austerity and cuts to youth

services have occurred alongside an

over-emphasis on seeking to

collaborate with faith-based

organisations. This is yet another

manifestation of the government’s

view that religiosity is a key factor in

extremism:

“You need to get loads of social

workers and youth workers that are

really getting out there. Some of

whom are out there already, but

that’s the kind of approach that

needs to be taken, not on a faith

basis. Prevent appears to be taking

things down the route of faith, and

it’s not like that. Anybody’s

susceptible to it”66.

65https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/06/uk-extremism-manchester-london-attacks-inequality 66 Female 9

5.8 There is, in fact, much evidence

dismissing the premise that religious

practice is a key factor in

extremism67. The government’s

ongoing commitment to austerity

and failure to invest in young people

are missed opportunities to make a

tangible positive impact. It is a poor

indictment of the strongly policing

centric model of engagement that

favours surveillance and

enforcement over genuine attempts

at community engagement.

67 https://www.tmimag.com/articles/absurdities-counter-extremism/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/06/uk-extremism-manchester-london-attacks-inequality



https://www.tmimag.com/articles/absurdities-counter-extremism/

https://www.tmimag.com/articles/absurdities-counter-extremism/

6. Accountability and

Effectiveness

6.1 Prevent is shrouded in secrecy at all

levels, from the guidance and

training given, the grounds upon

which referrals are made, the

success indicators, if any, and the

statistical data associated with it.

Often any data that does enter the

public domain has only been made

available upon Freedom of

Information requests, although many

of these requests are rejected on the

grounds of national security. The

reluctance to make data available

places numerous obstacles in the

way of public scrutiny of the entire

Prevent apparatus.

6.2 Notwithstanding the difficulty in

accessing data from the relevant

agencies, studies as far ranging as

those by the Institute of Race

Relations to the United Nations have

repeatedly spoken of Prevent not

being fit for purpose. These findings

are consistent with the perceptions

and experiences our respondents

have with Prevent:

“I don’t know whether reports are

published on the success of Prevent

and the benefits of it or anything like

that. But as a society, I just haven’t

seen anything positive, and as a

member of society I’ve never seen

anything positive come out of it”68.

6.3 With no formal accountability

frameworks there is little scope for

checks and balances in the

implementation of Prevent:

68 Male 5

“There is no reporting back, there is

no accountability, there is no kind of,

we don't know what happens, we’re

not told, there is no obligation of the

Home Office counter extremism unit,

or counter terrorism unit, to report to

Parliament to say that in this year

you know, we did this with this

number of people or anything like

that, or what the effects were” 69.

6.4 This accountability vacuum is

problematic given the continued

absence of any agreed upon

definition of extremism. The usage

of the term extremism has come to

be perceived, and indeed

experienced, as a political tool. The

application of extremism seems to

reflect changes in government

policies and allies rather than

holding its own:

“[It’s] the government that says who

the extremists are and who aren’t

the extremists, and it's when they

say they are or when they aren’t and

it's according to the interests of the

state. So, yesterday’s extremist

could become tomorrow’s allies and

vice versa, which we've seen time

and again in the history of our

foreign policy. One minute we’re…

Gaddafi is the biggest problem, then

he’s our ally then he’s a problem

again. The Mujahideen were once

our friends, then they became our

enemies. There’s no, sort of,

objective systematic definition of

extremism and there never will, it's

always a political label that’s

dictated by the interests of the

governing class. I don’t see that will

ever change”70.

69 Frances Webber 70 Anonymous, Researcher and Activist

Rethinking Prevent: Accountability and Effectiveness

6.5 In a context where there is no actual

agreed upon definition to the

standard being applied, and where

there is no apparent accountability,

the knowledge of those who are

implementing a policy becomes all

the more significant. A number of

respondents describe the training

given to frontline workers that are

subject to the Prevent duty as being

highly problematic, and devoid of

any real substance. This training is

often limited in time and very

Muslim-centric in content:

“I remember speaking to someone,

three years ago, who attended a

WRAP71 session, who said, “The

only thing I learned was that I need

to watch out for somebody overly

saying ‘Salam’ in the playground.”

Really?..., I felt so frustrated on the

simplified narrative some trainers

were delivering. It allowed people to

focus and look upon Islam and

Muslims as a potential threat. That

for me is where Government is really

missing a trick”72.

6.6 As a consequence, frontline workers

are often left to apply Prevent on the

basis of their own views, however ill-

informed. This lack of knowledge

combined with structurally

embedded Islamophobia results in

the potential for discrimination

against almost any expression of

Muslim identity:

71 Workshop to raise awareness of Prevent.

This respondent stated that WRAP training had subsequently improved. 72 M. Ali Amla

“I think they don’t even have a clue

what the success indicators are,

because, first of all, we’ve got a

Government that fails to even give

us a definition of extremism. It’s

incredibly subjective...people who

are implementing it in universities,

teachers, lecturers, students in fact,

don’t really have a clue about…

what’s defined as extremist

behaviour. I mean it ranges from

graffiti, to, I don’t know, suddenly

wearing the veil; and I mean these

are really ridiculous indicators...so,

what it’s doing is making almost any

behaviour, just by being Muslim, you

are a suspected extremist...So, I

guess success could be measured

by how many Muslims can we take

in the net of this but that for me, isn’t

success, that’s a massive epic

failure”73.

6.7 There is a reluctance, on the part of

government, to engage with

evidence that challenges the

existing Prevent narrative as well as

the linkages between Islamic

practice and radicalisation. This

suggests a focus on maintaining the

status quo, and speaks to a greater

commitment, on the part of

government, to remain focused on

an easily identifiable section of the

population rather than actually

tackling the causes of radicalisation:

“Forget the evidence. This is about

ideology. And I just know.” And this

is where the Islamophobia comes in,

the clash of civilisations comes in,

Orientalism comes in. “I just know



that Muslims are terrorists because

this is what I have known. This is

their history. So I don’t care about

what the evidence says to me, I just

know it, that they are”74.

6.8 Claims such as those recently made

by Commander Dean Haydon, one

of the most senior police officers in

Scotland Yard, who said “I have

seen the work of Prevent….it’s a

fantastic tool and it’s here to stay”75

have no discernable grounding in

evidence. Moreover, such claims are

rarely challenged in the public

domain in an informed manner as

little air space, or indeed intellectual

freedom (as discussed earlier in

Section 3) is given to those who

would be able to do so.

6.9 The deliberate and consistent

reluctance to open up Prevent to

public scrutiny also enables the

proponents of Prevent to dismiss

any critique. The assertion by Cdr.

Haydon, Senior police officer at

Scotland Yard, that “[T]hey [critics of

Prevent] don’t understand properly

how Prevent works”, is one such

example76.

6.10 Such sweeping statements from

people in authority belie the lived

experience of large groups of the

population and delegitimise those

involved in holding government and

government agencies to account.

74 Anonymous, Journalist 75 Asian Network, Cdr Haydon, Thursday 8th Aug 2017 76 Asian Network, Cdr Haydon, Thursday 8th

Aug 2017

This effective silencing is further

compounded by the perceptions that

widespread surveillance gives rise to

the misinterpretation of words

and/or actions (see Section 3 for

further details).

6.11 The recent terror attacks in

Manchester and London have cast a

spotlight on the failures of the entire

counter-terrorism apparatus, as well

as the inherent hypocrisy of those

who push the false narrative of

‘Muslims need to do more’:

“How effective is Prevent if terrorist

incidences are on the rise? This

question is being asked by teachers,

activists as well as young

Muslims”77.

6.12 The perpetrators of the Manchester

attack, Salman Abedi, was known to

British security services for 5 years

before the attack; having been

reported by a community worker,

religious leader and family

members. Despite this the Chief

Constable of Greater Manchester

said he was not known to the

Prevent programme. The leader of

the London attacks, Khurram Butt as

well as one of his accomplices

Youssef Zaghba had both been

reported to the police. The New York

Times reported that Khurram Butt

was subject to the Prevent

programme78. Despite the

demonstrable failure of security

77 Female 6 78 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/world/europe/london-attack-uk.html?mcubz=0

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/world/europe/london-attack-uk.html?mcubz=0

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/world/europe/london-attack-uk.html?mcubz=0


services to follow through on

complaints, it was British Muslims

that were subjected, yet again, to

calls of “Muslims need to do more”.

The irony of this was not lost on

some of our respondents:

“I’ve been reading in the media lots

of well-known people have been

saying the Muslim community needs

to do more and should do more, but

my question is: what do they want

the Muslim community to do? For

me, that’s the question, because this

young man was known to MI5, MI6

or whoever, and yet they couldn’t

prevent this action. So how do other

people – non-Muslims – expect

Muslims to try and deal with these

people?”79

6.13 For many of the respondents it is the

exclusionary culture being cultivated

in Britain, and the institutionalisation

of Islamophobia that Prevent gives

rise to, that are the actual cause of

extremism, and not faith based

belief. There can be no greater

condemnation of the effectiveness of

Prevent than its own role in the

fuelling of radicalisation:

“It’s breading the radicalisation that

it’s trying to get rid of, that’s what it’s

doing”80.

6.14 Some of our respondents posit the

notion that it is not Prevent, rather

the existing criminal justice system

that should be utilised to tackle the

challenges posed by terrorism

79 Anonymous, Teacher 80 Female 9

related crimes. They suggest that

the creation of an entire gambit of

legislation and institutional

frameworks is actually

counterproductive, elevating

criminals to martyrs and making

collateral damage out of an entire

religious group. This is all the more

significant given the observation that

what unites those who commit

terrorist offences, Muslims and

otherwise, is a tendency towards

criminality rather than faith or

ideology:

“These are not religiously pious

conservative Muslims. They usually,

are petty criminals with a criminal

record for drugs, possibly violence,

and it is quite obvious that... the

profile is completely wrong. It

doesn’t accord with reality81.

6.15 In apparent contradiction, some of

the younger respondents expressed

a desire for crimes by far-right

groups to also be referred to as

terrorism in a bid for Muslims and

non-Muslims to be treated equally.

However, many activist respondents

argued that in their struggle for the

Muslim population to be given equal

treatment they do not mean

reducing civil liberties for others,

rather raising the standards and

respecting all groups:

“Prevent is a policy that in essence

is counter-productive. We do not

believe in this policy to be used

against far-right extremism either

because, it would do the same to the

81 Frances Webber


white working-class people, as it is

doing to the Muslim community. It

will stigmatise young people,

children in particular. You know,

children do and say a lot of things.

The interventions that need to

happen are already in place under

the safeguarding kind of policies”82.

6.16 Respondents draw attention to the

legitimacy, and indeed

effectiveness, that the criminal

justice system can provide to any

state enforced counter-terror action.

The checks and balances of the

criminal custice system seem, to

some respondents, as an effective

way of tackling terrorism related

crime whilst still protecting civil

liberties:

“You need to focus in on criminal

justice approaches, because they

are much more effective, because

what you are doing there is you are

focusing in on evidence. Counter-

terrorism today is devoid of

evidence. It’s ideological...What

criminal justice does is it says,

“What’s the evidence? And is it

strong evidence?’ Counter-terrorism

Prevent says, “They have changed

their hairstyle a little bit. They have

changed their dress code a little bit.

Does that indicate that in ten years’

time they might become a terrorist?”

So it’s guesswork”83.

82 Azad Ali 83 Anonymous, University Lecturer 3

7. Power Relations and the

Coercion of Prevent

7.1 Several respondents spoke of the

uncritical manner in which frontline

professionals, such as teachers and

doctors, were approaching Prevent,

particularly following the introduction

of the Counter Terrorism and

Security Act 2015. This Act places a

duty on public sector professionals

to take an active role in preventing

extremism, and is highlighted as

particularly problematic in promoting

an overly zealous approach in

identifying suspicious individuals

and behaviour.

7.2 Of greater concern are the

practitioners and institutions directly

engaging in racial profiling through

an Islamophobic lens. This racial

profiling can occur through

deliberate prejudice or a

misunderstanding of roles and

responsibilities in terms of counter

terrorism; as one of our respondents

a race equality professional, recalls:

“Whilst Prevent is meant to be

addressing all forms of

extremism...there was one school

that I contacted recently and then

they said, ‘oh we don’t really have

any Muslim students, even though

they should be aware of the Prevent

duty’”84.

7.3 This confirms findings from a recent

academic study, which in examining

Prevent and its implementation

within schools, found that extremism

was primarily understood as a

‘Muslim’ issue. The authors

84 Anonymous, Race Equality Professional

comment that “[T]his clear disparity

reveals the blatant and specific

focus on the governing, regulating

and spying on almost exclusively

Muslim children”85. This study also

confirms respondent’ observations,

detailed in Section 6, of a

demonstrable lack of knowledge

among teachers of basic cultural

and diversity issues. This, in turn,

raises significant questions about

their roles in policing their students

for ‘signs’ of radicalisation or

extremism.

7.4 With all the inherent flaws of Prevent

already identified, the impact of

making it a duty is that

discrimination becomes entrenched

as professionals simply tick the

boxes. One of our respondents

addresses this area by suggesting

that teachers may choose to

overlook the injustice and prejudice

associated with Prevent simply to

ensure that they are complying with

the law:

“The whole mass space of Prevent

is going to continue, whether you

like it or not, and actually, your

ordinary teacher, for example... they

might not even want to understand

why it impacts inevitably in

communities, because, actually,

their bit of world, is we’ve got

officers coming in, they are going to

ask us have we done our Prevent

training and can we get our tick on

that?”86

85 Sian, Katy P (2015) ‘Spies, Surveillance and Stakeouts: Monitoring Muslim Moves in British State Schools’, Race, Ethnicity and Education 18, no. 2: 183-201 86 Anonymous, Race Equality Professional

Rethinking Prevent: Power Relations and the Coercion of Prevent

7.5 The above quote provides an insight

into the coercive effects of Prevent,

which many may see as simply a

tickbox exercise but which, for

racialized minorities and Muslims in

particular, has very real, serious and

deleterious consequences. Some

respondents find that even where

there was an apparent willingness

on the part of public sector agencies

to ensure an equitable, non-

discriminatory application of

Prevent, this will dissipates in the

face of legal duties:

“When it had the force of the law

behind it, then they went into their

little boxes and said. ‘Right, okay.’

You know, ‘we appreciate that there

are all these problems with it, but we

have got a legal duty...”87.

7.6 There has been concern from a

number of quarters that institutions

such as universities, in rushing to

comply with the Prevent Duty, are

overlooking other responsibilities,

particularly in terms of equality and

human rights. In addressing this, the

Equality and Human Rights

Commission released a short guide

for universities in early 201788 titled

Delivering the Prevent duty in a fair

and proportionate way.

7.7 Whilst this guide contains useful

advice for higher education

institutions, its very recent

introduction, and relatively low

87 Anonymous, Academic 88 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/delivering-the-prevent-duty.pdf

profile in comparison to the Prevent

Duty, indicates that increasing the

awareness of legal responsibilities

related to equality and diversity is

not a government priority in terms of

the counter terrorism landscape.

Such a scenario can be seen to

further contribute to an environment

where Muslim individuals, groups

and communities are regarded as a

collective ‘suspect community’89 and

wrongly ascribed, among

practitioners and frontline

professionals, as the sole or primary

focus of counter terrorism efforts.

89 Pantazis, Christina, and Simon Pemberton. 2009. “From the ‘Old' to the ‘New' Suspect Community: Examining the Impacts of Recent UK Counter-Terrorist Legislation.” British Journal of Criminology 49 (5): 646–666

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/delivering-the-prevent-duty.pdf

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/delivering-the-prevent-duty.pdf

8. Solidarity, Resilience and

Resistance

8.1 Whilst many of our respondents

reported negative experiences

associated with Prevent, a

prominent theme emerged in terms

of the effects it had in politicising

individuals and leading, in some

cases, to highly informed activism:

“It’s institutionalised a lot of

marginalisation, a lot of

demonisation of the community. It’s

made a lot of confident people

become people who now have to

bury their head in the sand. At the

same time, it’s empowered a lot

more people. There are people now

who, just to use an example, the

only thing they knew about life was

handbags and shoes, are now

actually writing very in-depth and

articulate political blogs, and do

speeches challenging a lot of

things”90.

8.2 Whilst for some individuals Prevent

led them to becoming withdrawn,

paranoid and distrustful, for others it

proved to be a spark for taking an

increased interest in civil liberties

and civil society through protest,

activism and organising. A number

of our respondents recognised the

resilience of, particularly young,

Muslims who continue to make

space for themselves and thrive in

often hostile environments:

“I mean there have been some

positive impacts as well because

when pressure is put on a certain

90 Azad Ali

segment of society, especially young

people will respond, stand up and

it's empowering. So when you put

young people under pressure, it's

like with the election, there you go.

How did young people respond

when they were told that they don't

count really? They said, "Right, we'll

show you". They all responded. In a

way, the same thing has happened

in the Muslim community. The more

negativity they've had, the more they

will empower themselves. They will

organise some things like the digital

technology that, of late, has

impacted young people in particular,

it has been incredible”91.

8.3 Many young Muslims have

proactively and creatively responded

to much of the negativity associated

with them by bringing out the very

best in themselves and those

around them. One respondent

highlights the central role that many

young Muslims now play in the

charity sector, and of how this is a

crucial aspect of shaping identities:

“One of the biggest things, areas

where I've seen an impact of this is

in the charity sector because young

Muslims, most of them, don't go out

drinking and that sort of thing. They

don't socialise in that way but a lot of

young Muslims that I know, they

socialise through organising charity

events. ...This is very recent that

Muslims are creating their own

identity and their own place in

society. I think it has a really good...

it's exemplary to other young ...

There are a lot of young people

helping the homeless and doing

charity work in this country, not just

91 Zareen Ahmed

Rethinking Prevent: Solidarity, Resilience and Resistence

abroad. I think there have been

many positive impacts”92.

8.4 The divisive climate has been

staunchly rejected by some, as

communities, groups and individuals

have come together to challenge

certain narratives. Many of our

respondents felt supported and

defended by non-Muslims who

sought to mitigate the impact of

Prevent in various ways - such as

political or online activism93, vocal

support and even principled stands

that have resulted in the loss of a

career:

“I have a friend who's just given up a

teaching position because of what

the curriculum is and and alongside

because of what they what they

wanted to teach these kids she

didn't feel like it was ethically right

and one of those things being it

wasn't exactly like Prevent but it was

to some extent... she's non-Muslim

and she did not agree with it at all”94.

8.5 There is recognition and respect for

the support shown to Muslim

communities by groups such as the

National Union of Students, the

National Union of Teachers and the

Universities and Colleges Union, all

of whom have released statements

or passed motions at conferences

condemning Prevent. Such

resistance, from a wide variety of

individuals, groups and

organisations, has often been

92 Zareen Ahmed 93 Male 6 94 Female 1

overlooked in popular and political

discourse. Instead of taking such

stands seriously, critics of Prevent

are often dismissed as ‘Islamists’ or

as aspects of the ‘far left’. The

evidence however suggests that this

is far from the reality, with

representatives of the United

Nations, the civil liberties group

Liberty and a whole host of other

human rights organisations, all

offering critique of the government’s

counter terrorism strategy and

approach.

8.6 Despite many young Muslims

resisting Prevent through

engagement with democratic

processes and local community

organising, our respondents do

share a number of deleterious

effects of constantly being

demonised and seen through the

prism of extremism, terrorism and

radicalisation. These include

significant impacts to a sense of

identity, belonging and citizenship.

This impact is likely to become all

the more problematic in a context

where nursery school age children

are subjected to the Prevent

apparatus:

“But, I’d certainly worry about how

it’s affecting, as well, young people’s

confidence in their own sense of

self. I mean, from that research I

was telling you earlier when we were

in schools. Five year olds, you know,

being subjected to that and probably

not aware whatsoever but it’s still in

the long run, probably going to have

unintended or subconscious effects


on them. They’re being monitored in

such a way and I just think that must

really affect young Muslims”95.

8.7 The following quote, from a race

relations campaigner and former

barrister, highlights the case of a

schoolboy who was asked if he was

a supporter of radicalism and

terrorism after innocently using a

legitimate word in the classroom:

“It completely shook his trust in that

school. It was so out of the blue, so

his whole relationship with that

school was profoundly and, I think

permanently, damaged. His own self

confidence took a beating; although

because his mother supported him

with tremendous tenacity and then

because of the support that he got

from other quarters by publicizing

the case, in fact he’s, he’s sort of

regained his self confidence

because he’s, he spoke very

articulately about what had

happened to him”96.

8.8 In discussing resistance to the

government’s counter terrorism

strategy, reference was made to the

healthcare sector and specifically

the doctor/patient relationship.

Arguably, less is known about the

implementation of Prevent in the

healthcare sector as compared to

schools and universities, but the

existing evidence points to

disturbing cases of anti-Muslim

discrimination, racism and breaches

95 Anonymous, University Lecturer 2 96 Frances Webber

of doctor patient confidentiality97.

One respondent discusses how

Prevent places additional pressure

on practitioners already suffering

from the significant budget cuts

implemented through the austerity

agenda and alludes to the risks they

take in speaking out:

“So, this kind of push by the

government to make it a public duty

has backfired really spectacularly on

them. I think the resistance against it

has become obvious from those

professionals that are involved. The

doctors, they really feel that they are

letting their patients down because

that patient doctor relationship is

breaking down. You know, they’re

already under stress with their cuts

and everything else, now on top of

that they have to deal with that as

well”98.

8.9 Critique of Prevent is often

dismissed, particularly in the right

wing press, but increasingly too by

politicians and political

commentators, as the work of

‘Islamists’ or ‘Islamist sympathisers’.

Such criticisms ignore the opposition

and resistance to Prevent from a

cross section of society, often from

individuals committed to the values

of human rights and social justice.

Some of our respondents

highlighted the ways in which

resistance to Prevent can be

characterised as risky and

dangerous, due to the reputational

97 https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n10/karma-nabulsi/dont-go-to-the-doctor 98 Azad Ali

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n10/karma-nabulsi/dont-go-to-the-doctor

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n10/karma-nabulsi/dont-go-to-the-doctor


damage suffered by those who

publicly speak out as critics of

government policy:

“We don’t rise up and say, “Yes, we

need to take a stand, we need to

fight against oppressive counter-

terrorism policies,” and whatever.

Actually no, it’s often the opposite.

I’ve had volunteers working for

CAGE, whose parents have been on

the phone to me saying, “Please, we

don’t want our son or our daughter

to be involved in this type of work

because they’ll become a target

then.” It’s not because they don’t

believe in the work, that’s crucial.

They believe in the work, they just

don’t want their child to be

targeted”99.

8.10 The following quote usefully

summarises this section and

illuminates the need for resisting

unjust counter terrorism policy and

legislation via a rights based

discourse. Such an approach has

been taken, at times with great risk

to personal reputation, by many of

the respondents we spoke to:

“But to be honest with you, you’ve

got to stand for what you stand for,

really. You can’t tiptoe around what

the government wants. You know,

you can’t have state approved

debate; that’s not going to get

anywhere. You need to stand up for

what you want. If that means it’s

going to be a problem, that’s not a

problem for the people because the

99 Asim Qureshi

people have got the full right to

speak up about things”100.

100 Male 3

9. Concluding Remarks

9.1 Prevent is a harmful policy that

disproportionately impacts the

Muslim community. There is little to

no evidence of its potential to tackle

extremism, yet there is abundant

evidence to demonstrate its harms.

9.2 In this report we address the

unwarranted surveillance and the

consequent self-censorship of many

Muslims. This self-censorship is a

direct attempt to ensure they are not

victimised further by structures that

have problematised them from the

outset.

9.3 A 2016 Parliamentary report

highlights that failing to take into

account complexities would be

counter-productive and “fuel the

attraction to the extremist narrative

rather than dampening it”101. Whilst

a positive step in beginning to

explore government culpability, this

also runs the risk of the broad brush

approach being applied to the

Muslim community at large. What is

clear is that in ignoring such

complexities the government

persistently demonstrates a lack of

will to actually tackle the issue of

extremism and terrorism as they

themselves have defined it.

9.4 The vast proportion of those that feel

unheard, isolated or subjected to

securitisation do not turn to

extremism or violence. Whilst our

report finds that the sense of

discontent is certainly increased in

such instances, this is not to suggest

101 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Report (2016) Radicalization the Counter Narrative: Identifying the Tipping Point. London, TSO: 9

that it directly corresponds to a

likelihood of increased violence. In

fact, in many instances it increases

civic and political engagement as

individuals and organisations seek

to alter the status quo and reclaim

their voice.

9.5 Crimes by those ascribing to right-

wing fascist ideals have significantly

increased in a climate where

grievances can not just be aired, but

are proactively espoused by people

in national and international

positions of power. The focus of

Prevent on one entire section of the

population, irrespective of whether

they are innocent or guilty, makes

the government complicit in creating

a climate of right-wing radicalisation.

It also results in the demonization of

minorities and certain faith groups,

and highlights a lack of will to tackle

the increasingly visible threat posed

by white supremacists.

9.6 Our report, supported by multiple

studies, demonstrates the urgent

need to alter the discourse. As

Mythen et al argue, “It is vital that

distorted constructions of Islam and

approaches that assume Muslims to

be a homogenous and risky group

are challenged and rebutted”102.

9.7 Our report has found that the

Prevent strategy is not just

ineffectual but actually

counterproductive to its purported

aims. Furthermore, the introduction

of the CTSA 2015, effectively

placing Prevent on a statutory

102 Mythen, G. Walklate, S., Peatfield, E. J. (2017) Assembling and Deconstructing Radicalization in Prevent: A case of policy-based evidence making. Critical Social Policy Vol 37 (2) 180-201: 192

Rethinking Prevent: Concluding Remarks

footing, has compounded these

problems. The issues with Prevent

are all the more evident in the

context of increasing numbers of

terror attacks, threat levels

remaining at an all time high, and

egregious human rights abuses

9.8 A healthy and robust society is one

in which government agencies are

accountable to civil society. The

intrusion of Prevent into almost all

levels of civil society as a statutory

obligation, without the establishment

of any form of public accountability,

demonstrates the damage Prevent

is doing.

9.9 The vast body of academic and

policy based research, supported by

our own findings, demands that

Prevent be deconstructed from the

wider substantive CONTEST103

counter terrorism strategy. Our

report points to the urgent need for a

radically different anti-terror

approach - one that respects civil

liberties, avoids the targeting of

racialised minority groups and does

not necessitate the presence of

policing and surveillance in all

aspects of public life.

103 The four elements of Pursue, Prevent, Protect and Prepare constitute the CONTEST government counter terrorism strategy

10. Recommendations

1. For the Prevent aspect of the government’s CONTEST counter terrorism strategy to be immediately withdrawn in order to prevent further human rights abuses

2. For a full and independent inquiry into the entire government counter-terrorism strategy, to be conducted with full transparency by a non-governmental organisation, where the terms of reference are framed following consultation with charities, human rights organisations and civil liberties groups

3. For the government to release details of all projects funded through counter terrorism budgets in order to allow full and transparent public scrutiny. Specifically, this information should include all costs associated with funded projects, demographic information of those subject to the projects, details on how success was determined and any subsequent evaluations undertaken

4. For the government to reverse budget cuts to youth services and provision promoted under the austerity programme, particularly those in deprived neighbourhoods

5. For the government to cease the divisive and discriminatory practice of embedding counter terrorism aims and objectives within social policy programmes aimed at British Muslims, particularly in the area of ‘integration’ and through the discourse of ‘British values’

6. For the government to encourage and fund a national programme of multicultural initiatives and programmes - outside of a counter terrorism framework

7. For government ministers and senior police officers with responsibility for counter terrorism to cease targeting the critics of Prevent

8. For independent academic research to examine the specific issue of self censorship among Muslim students and academics within universities, particularly following the introduction of the CTSA 2015

“You know, they don’t do anything

on hate crime, they don’t do

anything on Islamophobia, they

don’t do anything on, even like,

community cohesion, they want to

do all of that through counter-

terrorism. And, that is like, the

biggest mistake... If it comes from

wanting to create a good, strong

society where everyone succeeds,

then, it has to come from

somewhere that is not related to

counter-terrorism”104.

104 Female 10

Appendix 1: Brief Respondent

Biographies.

Young Muslims

Female 1

25 year old British Pakistani, university

graduate on maternity leave from

teaching.

Female 2

23 years old British Pakistani, university

graduate, currently working full-time.

Female 3

21 years old British Pakistani university

student.

Female 4

23 years old British Pakistani, studying at

university

Female 5

18 year old British Pakistani studying at

post-secondary school.

Female 6

24 years old 3rd generation British Asian.

Primary school teacher.

Female 7

19 year old British Indian, works at a call

centre.

Female 8

22 year old Female Pakistani currently a

university student. Also works at a further

education institute.

Female 9

25 year old British Pakistani, self

employed university graduate.

Female 10

25 year old British female Pakistani.

Active in student politics. University

graduate, currently employed full time and

in part time education.

Male 1

18 years old British Pakistani, recently

completed college. Will be attending

university in September. Has memorized

the Qur’an.

Male 2

18 year old British Pakistani male,

studying BTEC level III. Has a conditional

place to start university in September.

Male 3

25 year old British Pakistani university

graduate, currently in full-time education.

Male 4

22 year old male post-graduate university

student.

Male 5

24 year old British Pakistani. University

graduate currently pursuing a Masters.

Male 6

24 year old Black male, undergraduate

student and employed.

Stakeholders

Abdul Rehman Malik

Currently a fellow at Yale. Journalist,

Educator and Organiser. Programme

Manager at Radical Middle Way (RMW).

RMW worked with the government from

December 2005 to approximately March

2011; after which RMW did not engage

with the particular Prevent funds that were

created.

Anonymous, Activist

Campaigner against foreign policy abuses

and anti-Prevent activist.

Rethinking Prevent: Appendix 1

Anonymous, Journalist

Mid-30s, South Asian British male with

post-graduate qualifications. Covers

stories of extremism and radicalisation.

Anonymous, NUS Officer

Youth worker, also employed at further

education institute. University graduate,

active in student politics.

Anonymous Politician

Mid 50s, British Pakistani male, University

graduate with a number of professional

qualifications. Previously employed in

community development and as Prevent

Officer.

Anonymous, Race Equality

Professional

Director of an organisation that provides

Prevent training as well as research and

facilitation.

Anonymous, Researcher and Activist

Community activist and commentator. Has

worked in publishing for a number of

years. Currently pursuing Doctorate. Part

of the preventing extremism together task

force in Windsor in 2005. Written

numerous publications on Prevent.

Anonymous, Teacher

27 year old British born Pakistani.

Secondary school maths teacher.

Anonymous, University Lecturer 1

Male, Senior Lecturer in Education.


Early 30s, female, university Lecturer,

non-Muslim.


Early 30s, Male, working at university in

south England.

Asim Qureshi

Graduate in Law, Masters in international

law, international human rights law

andIslamic law. Worked with NGO CAGE

since 2004, focusing on research. Also

works with legal teams as an advisor.

Francis Webber

Retired barrister working specifically in the

field of immigration, refugees and human

rights. Involved with the Institute of Race

Relations since the late 1960s, presently

the Vice Chair. Conducts research and

writes on issues of institutionalized racism

in different fields including policing and

national security.

Humera Khan

Following a degree in Social Policy, began

working in equalities in Housing. Founding

member of An-Nisa, independent

organisation that works on issues that

affect Muslim communities.

M Ali Amla

Freelance Researcher, Trainer and

Project Manager. Research Associate with

Lancaster University, specifically,

researching and focussing on

transnational activism. Has an MA in

Social Work and is currently studying for

an MA in Religion and Conflicts, with

specialism in radicalisation. Engaged with

Prevent agenda for the last 10 years,

originally, on the Channel pilot projects.

Included in Home Office Best Practice

Catalogue on Prevent in 2015.

Rethinking Prevent: Appendix 1

Shaykh Ahmed Saad al-Azhari

Egyptian scholar first came to the UK in

2004, 2005 and 2006 as a visiting imam

to the East London mosque during

Ramadan. Worked at Finsbury Park

mosque for 5 years since 2006 after it was

taken over from Abu Hamza al-Masri.

Established Ihsan institute in 2012 that

aims at teaching Islam to adults.

Third Sector Worker

Mid-40s, female, works for a charity that

serves Muslims across the UK.

Third Sector Worker 2

Works for a Muslim women’s charity, has

decades of experience working in the not-

for-profit sector.

Dr Zareen Ahmed PhD

Entrepreneur, humanitarian and activist.

Has two businesses and runs a charity

called The Halimah Trust. Also does

academic work speaking on issues such

as Prevent and women's issues. PhD

thesis was from a Muslim woman's

perspective looking at the role of Muslim

women within Prevent.

Zulaikha Farooqi

Campaigner and community activist.

Father was arrested and sentenced to life

under terrorism legislation when she was

19 years of age.

Rethinking Prevent: A Case for an Alternative...

Documents

Transcript of Rethinking Prevent: A Case for an Alternative...